Pool v. United States

121 F. Supp. 917, 128 Ct. Cl. 525, 46 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 201, 1954 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 11
United States Court of Claims·Decided June 8, 1954·No. No. 49843·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs sue to recover income tax for 1943 in the amount of $9,976.06, with interest thereon as provided by law.

In auditing the return of income filed by plaintiffs as executors and trustees of the estate of Joseph T. Sneed, Jr., for 1943, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed a deduction claimed and taken by plaintiffs in the amount of $15,000 regularly paid by them to Dorothy Love Sneed in 1943, in accordance with the provisions of the codicil to the will of Joseph T. Sneed, Jr.

It is plaintiff’s position that this deduction was proper and should have been allowed in determining the taxable net income of the estate under the provisions of Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code1 (1) because under the terms of the testator’s will and codicil thereto the payment in 1943 to Dorothy could be made only out of income of the trust or estate and was therefore deductible within the meaning of Section 162 (b) or (c); or (2) because even if the distribution or payment could have been made from other than income of the estate or trust, it was part of a bequest by the testator which was to be distributed at intervals, and, the amount so distributed in 1943, was not in excess of the estate distributable income of the estate in that year and was,.therefore, deductible under Section 162 (d) (1). We are of the opinion that plaintiffs are right in their contention that the amount paid was deductible.

[527]*527Defendant argues, however, that under a proper construction of the testator’s will and codicil, the $15,000 payment to Dorothy Love Sneed in 1948 could have been made from either corpus or income of the trust, and that plaintiffs are not aided by Section 162 (d) (1) of the Code because the $15,000 was not part of a bequest payable to Dorothy at intervals, but was rather a lump sum payment required by the will to be made on a date certain.

Whether the $15,000 payment to Dorothy could have been made only out of income of the trust, or could have been made from corpus if necessary, depends upon the intention of the testator as expressed in his will and codicil.

On October 5,1936, Joseph T. Sneed, Jr., executed his will, in the second clause of which he bequeathed to his daughter, Elizabeth Sneed Pool, the family home and furnishings. In the third clause the testator bequeathed all the rest, residue, and remainder of his estate to his executors in trust, to be held, administered, and paid by them to the devisees and legatees named under the conditions therein provided. In the fourth clause of the will, the testator directed his executors and trustees to convert all the personal property of his estate, which comprised the corpus of the trust, into cash or bonds and other securities as the executors deemed advisable, and to hold, manage, invest, and reinvest such cash and securities, as well as all other money from other sources coming into the hands of the executors. This same clause then provided that “after the payment of taxes, -fixed charges, operating expenses and the expenses of administration,” the executors should pay over the “net income” [italics supplied} from the trust of the residuary estate to his daughter, Elizabeth Sneed Pool, during her lifetime. In a subpara-graph to this clause, the testator provided that in the event his daughter should predecease him and leave surviving her a child or children, the net income of the estate should be paid (in amounts and at times in the discretion of the trustees) for the care, maintenance, support, and education of such surviving child or children until the youngest should reach the age of twenty-one.

[528]*528In the fifth, clause of the will, the testator provided for the vesting of the corpus of the trust on the death of the life net income beneficiary, Elizabeth Sneed Pool. The sixth clause of the will contained further directions to the trustees concerning the management of the trust estate, and the seventh clause designated the persons who were to serve as executors and trustees. The testator changed his mind upon his second marriage.

Subsequent to the execution of his will, the testator remarried and adopted the two minor daughters of his second wife, Brad Love Sneed. On November 16, 1938, Mr. Sneed executed a codicil to his last will in which he made certain provisions for cash payments from his estate to be made to his wife and the two adopted daughters. With respect to his wife, Brad Love Sneed, the codicil provided that upon his death and for so long as Mrs. Sneed should survive him and remain unmarried, the executors and trustees named in his will should pay to her in cash $15,000 a year “out of my estate as a fixed charge and before the distribution and payment of the net income of my estate as in my said Will provided.” [Italics supplied.]

A further clause in the codicil provided that in the event his two adopted daughters survived him and reached the age of twenty-five years, they should each receive $15,000. The ■same clause also directed the executors and trustees named in his will to pay, in their discretion, whatever amounts they might deem necessary for the education and support of the two girls during their minority and “during the necessary time required thereafter for them or either of them to complete her or their education.” The next clause in the codicil provided as follows:

I desire and direct that the bequests hereinabove provided [which included the $15,000 to his wife] shall be paid out of my estate from time to time and in the amounts herein provided, as a fixed charge and before the distribution and payment of the net income of my estate as provided and I desire, and I here direct, that this Codicil be annexed to and made a part of my said Will of October 5,1936, to all intents and purposes.

[529]*529The testator died on October 15,1940, leaving him surviving, Elizabeth Sneed Pool, the net income life beneficiary of the testamentary trust, his wife, Brad Love Sneed, and the two adopted daughters named in the codicil to his will, Dorothy Love (Sneed) Brown and Betty Love Sneed. In 1943, Dorothy Love (Sneed) Brown reached the age of twenty-five years and the trustees and executors named in the. testator’s will paid to her the $15,000 provided for in the above mentioned codicil. In computing the taxable net income of the estate for 1943, the executors and trustees deducted the $15,000 paid to Dorothy. This deduction was-, disallowed to the estate by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and income tax was paid by the estate without the-benefit of this deduction. Dorothy did not report the sum as-income to her and no federal income tax thereon has been collected by the government from any person except the executors and trustees.

Plaintiffs insist that the estate was entitled to deduct the-$15,000 in determining the taxable net income of the estate for 1943 by virtue of the provisions of Section 162 (b) 2 and (c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code. We think it is clear that Section 162 (b) permits an estate or trust a deduction for the amount of estate or trust income which within the tax year becomes payable by the fiduciaries to legatees, heirs or beneficiaries. We also think it is clear that Section 162 (c) permits the estate a deduction for the amount of income received by the estate during the period of administration (and [530]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pool v. United States, 121 F. Supp. 917, 128 Ct. Cl. 525, 46 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 201, 1954 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 11 (cc 1954).

121 F. Supp. 917 (Pool v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abbott v. United States
287 F.2d 573 (Court of Claims, 1961)